UK report: fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks

[Coggeh]

Link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hObTWdaGAU_0O_dQ1NFJUVO9ZYoQD9GIE2P00

Outside disposing the myth of the foetus feeling pain before 24 weeks research has also shown that its after 24 weeks their is a certain unlikelihood of it ever feeling pain because of its position of constant sedation:


Citing evidence from medical research and post-mortem reports, the group said nerve connections in the brain were not sufficiently formed to allow pain perception until after 24 weeks, and that even after 24 weeks, the fetus was in a state of sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation.

This is not to say that abortions should be illegal or are wrong if it was the case that foetus's could feel pain as it is a decision purely for the women to make herself regardless of other consequences. This however would go a certain way in helping women feeling less guilty about choosing to abort a pregancy and could help relay fears of post-abortion depression etc.

Also this has another consequence in terms of British laws as the tories are trying to lower the 24 weeks to 20 or 18 weeks by saying they can feel pain at 24 weeks this puts their argument to bed.

[redmist]

Unfortunately it can be necessary for people to have abortions these days, for financial reasons, health risks being another reason. Hopefully this isn't used as a justification of abortion in all cases however, pain should be irrelevant when it comes to killing.


This however would go a certain way in helping women feeling less guilty about choosing to abort a pregancy and could help relay fears of post-abortion depression etc.

If it does help some women deal with some of the mental trauma they might encounter after an abortion, then that is certainly a good thing.

[proudcomrade]

pain should be irrelevant when it comes to killing.

WHAT?!? :huh:

...are you a sociopath?

[redmist]

WHAT?!? :huh:

...are you a sociopath?

I probably wasn't clear enough. I meant what I said from a pro life perspective, in the sense that even if the foetus doesn't feel pain, it doesn't justify it's killing.

I'm certainly not a sociopath. :lol:

[proudcomrade]

I probably wasn't clear enough. I meant what I said from a pro life perspective, in the sense that even if the foetus doesn't feel pain, it doesn't justify it's killing.

I'm certainly not a sociopath. :lol:

Oh, okay :D Guess I must've misread there.

[Sasha]

I probably wasn't clear enough. I meant what I said from a pro life perspective, in the sense that even if the foetus doesn't feel pain, it doesn't justify it's killing.

I'm certainly not a sociopath. :lol:


and then i assume that this pro-life perspective isnt yours?

[NotQuiteAsOne]

I think that abortions should be fully legalized, regardless of pain, for if the child is raised in a house which doesn't want it (i.e. one which wants the abortion) it's misery will be much more prolonged, and there will be more pain for everyone.

[Quail]

Thanks for posting :)
If it reduces the risk of post-abortion depression, people should be told about it when they're considering the procedure. It might make it easier for some women to decide to go ahead with it.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I don't like abortion, and I guess in an odd way, it is nice to know that they don't feel pain... however, I do not think that abortion should be made illegal simply because laws really don't do anything... in other words, you'd have a lot of back alley abortions that would result in more death...

Ultimately, I think it would be better for everyone if those who are against abortion would use their time, money and energy to advance already existing forms of embryonic and fetal transplantation, perhaps create an artificial womb and fix the broken adoption system. Also, if parents started being parents again... especially the loud mouth conservative ones that freak when schools hand out birth control, I think that would help too...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hopefully this isn't used as a justification of abortion in all cases however, pain should be irrelevant when it comes to killing.

That's ridiculous. So when killing a person or animal, we shouldn't take any measures to reduce the pain in the process?


Ultimately, I think it would be better for everyone if those who are against abortion would use their time, money and energy to advance already existing forms of embryonic and fetal transplantation, perhaps create an artificial womb and fix the broken adoption system.

But apparently that's "playing God" and we can't have that.

Besides, anti-abortion types have typically shown no concern whatsoever for actual children, so why should they start now?

[redmist]

I think that abortions should be fully legalized, regardless of pain, for if the child is raised in a house which doesn't want it (i.e. one which wants the abortion) it's misery will be much more prolonged, and there will be more pain for everyone.

This more or less sums up my own personal views.


That's ridiculous. So when killing a person or animal, we shouldn't take any measures to reduce the pain in the process?

That's not what I meant. I was talking from a pro-life perspective, they will not want to see it as a justification of the death of a foetus because it doesn't feel pain.

Why from a pro-life perspective? Well, because coincidently I was speaking to someone with those views before I read the above and what they had said was still in my head.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's not what I meant. I was talking from a pro-life perspective, they will not want to see it as a justification of the death of a foetus because it doesn't feel pain.

If it doesn't feel pain, then that cuts the ground out from underneath any non-religious objections to abortion.


Why from a pro-life perspective? Well, because coincidently I was speaking to someone with those views before I read the above and what they had said was still in my head.

That person sounds like either an idiot or a liar. Either an idiot for not thinking pain is a morally relevant question, or a liar for presenting their religious views as secular.

[(A)(_|]

Well, I think the pro-life argument for illegality after 20-22 weeks would be that the baby may have existential autonomy at the point of 24 weeks (Premature births) and therefore the conditions provided for by the mother's ovary are no longer necessary for life perpetuation. Once you think about it; so long as he is in the woman's body, then the conditions of life -at least for that isolated case- lay solely in that woman's body. I think it's a point to be discussed however.

[Red Saxon]

I would consider the development of a beating heart to be the point at which life truly begins. A beating heart signifies independence from the mother as a separate entity.

[x371322]

I would consider the development of a beating heart to be the point at which life truly begins. A beating heart signifies independence from the mother as a separate entity.

An interesting perspective. It's just that the heart is typically formed and beating by day 21 or so. That doesn't leave the woman a lot of time to make a decision regarding whether or not to keep the baby. In fact, in many cases, the heart is already beating by the time the woman learns she's pregnant in the first place.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The fetus can't feel pain. Can it feel pleasure? Is it conscious? If it's none of these things early on, which I suspect is the case, how can an abortion possibly be so bad? I'll give it some credit and compare it to a plant. It doesn't have rights, but destroying a plant has a very small aesthetic consequence. But even that is arguable.

Where is the fetus supposed to be getting rights from here?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think the thing that strikes controversy most is potential. However, as mentioned before, a child in the hands of parents who would abuse it and hate it would be miserable and would more than likely become a stigma to society rather than a contributor... Like I've said before, I don't like abortion, and tbh, I don't think most people who support abortion like it... but because people seem to be against the many things that can help prevent pregnancies and since a lot of people are against things like embryonic/fetal transplantation... there is really no room to move when it comes to doing things that can help to reduce the abortion rate... and to make matters worse, the adoption system of the US is so badly fucked up that a lot of women have chose abortion simply knowing that their child would suffer while being shuffled through the bureaucratic system... If only people would become more flexible and allow prevention methods that actually work to be used and promoted... be it birth control at school or something of that nature...

[x371322]

I don't think most people who support abortion like itIt's not really that I support abortion, per se, so much as I support the right of the woman to choose abortion. That, to me, is the key issue. Choice, and the freedom to do with their bodies what they wish.

[People's War]

Very few people probably enjoy the thought of a potential life being ended. However, the woman is the owner of her own body and thus has the right to an abortion, as much as she has the right to a blood transfusion or an organ transplant.

[Coggeh]

Very few people probably enjoy the thought of a potential life being ended.
Anyone who does should probably be in some form of insititution lol

[Coggeh]

I would consider the development of a beating heart to be the point at which life truly begins. A beating heart signifies independence from the mother as a separate entity.
No it doesn't, its still in the mother it cannot survive just because it has a beating heart and without the mother it would die so clearly its not independant at all.

[x371322]

No it doesn't, its still in the mother it cannot survive just because it has a beating heart and without the mother it would die so clearly its not independant at all.

This. In fact, if we were to use any one organ as a guide, shouldn't we choose the brain instead?

[(A)(_|]

The fetus can't feel pain. Can it feel pleasure? Is it conscious? If it's none of these things early on, which I suspect is the case, how can an abortion possibly be so bad? I'll give it some credit and compare it to a plant. It doesn't have rights, but destroying a plant has a very small aesthetic consequence. But even that is arguable.

Where is the fetus supposed to be getting rights from here?

Yes, it could be compared to a plant in terms of aesthetic effect, however there's also the argument of life potentiality, which is almost always thrown out by pro-life supporters. I think the point at which the baby can live outside of its mother is the point at which abortion should be illegal. With exception of course to health situations. I'm not sure however if this particular point varies for each birth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, it could be compared to a plant in terms of aesthetic effect, however there's also the argument of life potentiality, which is almost always thrown out by pro-life supporters.

Because it's a non-argument. With the same logic, it's immoral to use any kind of birth control because you might give birth to the next Beethoven.

Interestingly, the pro-lifers who make that asinine argument never stop to consider that an abortion could prevent the next Hitler being born...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think the thing that strikes controversy most is potential.


Yes, it could be compared to a plant in terms of aesthetic effect, however there's also the argument of life potentiality, which is almost always thrown out by pro-life supporters. I think the point at which the baby can live outside of its mother is the point at which abortion should be illegal. With exception of course to health situations. I'm not sure however if this particular point varies for each birth.

I see Noxion has brought up the point I was going to make first. Contrastingly, I am more sympathetic to the view. The problem is that my sympathies extend to everything casually related to the production of life. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.

Hypothetically, there might be an ideal population level or the highest number might be ideal. Either way, this would be rather problematic not only for women, but for society as science evolves. It's very likely children will be born fully in labs in our lifetime, in my view. Should the scientists be forced to work round the clock producing as many children as possible given the potential lives at stake? Things would seem to indicate that.

See I am unaware of any method of distinguishing cases. If there is none, I'm even sympathetic to arguments for why the potential argument is valid for life itself. However, if morality does dictate society revolve around producing children, I'm just not going to be moral. That's just not acceptable to me. Maybe it's the equivalent of a serial killer believing "not killing" is just not acceptable to them. But I can say there is no chance of me supporting such things moral or not.

Theoretically, you might even defend the potential argument while defending abortion. You can say that the happiest society will maximize population while securing rights. No shortage of ways to produce children (or children for that matter) so abortions aren't really problematic in the current context.

If you asked me a few weeks into a random pregnancy whether the decision to have that child is admirable, I would say no. The existence most children are brought into makes it rather inexcusable that parents had them at all. Meanwhile, they refuse to adopt because they don't want a "second-hand black kid." No sadness concerning early term abortions here "except" for the living people they may impact.